Madsen v. Women's Health Center, Inc. (1994)

In Madsen v. Women’s Health Center, Inc., 512 U.S. 753 (1994), the Supreme Court addressed the conflict between the First Amendment rights of antiabortion protestors and women’s constitutional right to abortions. The Court reversed an injunction in part and affirmed it in part, finding that the buffer zone on a public street excluding abortion protestors was constitutional, but several other provisions were not. In this photo, anti-abortion demonstrators protest outside the Buffalo GYN Womenservices Clinic in the early morning, May 2, 1992. (AP Photo/Bill Sikes, used with permission from the Associated Press)

In Madsen v. Women’s Health Center, Inc., 512 U.S. 753 (1994), the Supreme Court addressed the conflict between the First Amendment rights of antiabortion protestors and women’s constitutional right to abortions. The Court reversed an injunction in part and affirmed it in part, finding that the buffer zone on a public street excluding abortion protestors was constitutional, but several other provisions were not.

Protestors were ordered not to trespass on abortion clinic property

The case arose out of demonstrations against the Aware Woman Center for Choice in Melbourne, Florida. Protestors blocked doors and marched on the street, using bullhorns to spread their message. They approached patients to try to convince them not to get an abortion and followed staff to their homes to demonstrate their opposition to abortion. Responding to the Center’s suit against the protestors, in September 1992 a state court judge ordered the protestors not to trespass on Center property, block its entrances, or physically abuse anyone entering or leaving the clinic; the judge specifically noted that the order was not intended to limit protestors from exercising their First Amendment rights.

Court created a buffer zone around clinic, patients, staff homes

About six months later, after the protestors violated the court order, the court created a 36-foot buffer zone around the clinic entrances and driveways (including the public sidewalk) within which all antiabortion speech was banned. It also prohibited excessive noise and images that patients could see or hear during surgery and recovery. Additionally, the court created a 300-foot zone that barred protestors from approaching patients without their consent and a 300-foot barrier for demonstrations and picketing at the homes of clinic staff.

The Florida Supreme Court unanimously upheld the order, declaring that the protestors’ activities conflicted with the state’s concern for public safety and women’s right to abortion. When the case reached the U.S. Supreme Court, it focused on the constitutionality of the 36-foot buffer zone, with the protestors claiming the state court order violated the First Amendment. Opponents argued that the court order targeted antiabortion expression because pro-choice demonstrators were allowed in the buffer zone. The Center contended that the order promoted a variety of interests including public safety, properly regulated the manner of the protest, and was unrelated to opinions on abortion.

Supreme Court upheld some buffer zones, struck down others

The Court’s 6-3 ruling, announced by Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist, held that the injunction was content-neutral and applied to all persons engaged in clinic protests, regardless of their message. The Court asked whether the burden imposed by the order was greater than that required to further an important government end. Applying this standard, it upheld the 36-foot buffer zone around the clinic entrances and driveway to preserve access to and from the clinic and to allow street traffic; it also allowed the noise restrictions.

The Court also found, however, that the restrictions imposed on private property at the back and side of the clinic and those forbidding protestors to show images to clients were unjustified because they imposed a greater burden on speech than was necessary. Similarly, the 300-feet zone around the clinic and at staff residences was too broad to allow the protestors to express their views peacefully and burdened their speech beyond the permissible limits of the government’s interest in ensuring access to the clinic and preventing intimidation of the patients and staff.